1974 PLP 39 (PLC)

(a)Arrears of Conveyance allowance, (b) Arrears of Overtime, (c) Payment of Income‑tax on arrears from 1‑1‑1967 to 30‑6‑1967. (d) Payment of special allowance of Rs. 30 per month to the Assistant 1‑Iawaldars at Mereweather Tower, Victoria Road and Garden Road Branches. Demand No. 2.‑--Under this demand, the following allowances, which are alleged to have been withdrawn lay the respondent‑Bank, are sought to be restored:

Karachi Dearness Emergency allowance and Special allowances:

(a) at the rate of Rs. 25 per month for the Clerical Staff, and (b) at the rate of Rs. 10 per month for Subordinate Staff. The record of the case shows that the applicant‑Union filed the Statement of Claims in support of their demands on 24‑5‑1968, while the respondent Bank filed the Reply Statement on 13‑7‑1968. Alongwith the Reply State ment, the respondents moved an application under section 11(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, praying that the matter be disposed of after hearing the preliminary legal objections with respect to the maintainability of the application. The Court ordered that the evidence be recorded on the preliminary legal objections. Accordingly, the respon dents examined their Manager, Mr. S. M. Abdullah, on 28‑10‑1969. The applicant‑Union, however, took more than three years to examine its witness, Mr. R. B. Ambar, the newly elected General Secretary of the applicant‑Union, who filed his affidavit on 16‑12‑1972. Since the case bad become very old, the applicant‑Union was allowed to adduce evidence on the legal issues as well as the facts of the cases After he was cross‑examined, and parties filed their written arguments, the matter has come up for decision. My findings are as follows :‑ Demand No, 1.‑

The case of the applicant‑Union with respect to this demand, as appears from its Statement of Claims, is that the respondents were repeatedly requested to implement the Settlement dated 29‑9‑1967, brat they refused and neglected to accede to the requests of the applicant Union. The respondents have opposed this demand, firstly, on the ground this demand having already been covered by the Settlement dated 29‑9‑1967, could not be raised as a fresh demand. Secondly, the respondents have denied that they have committed breach of any of the terms of the said Settlement. They claim that they have faithfully implemented all the terms thereof. Now, it is no doubt true that a party to a Settlement can move the Court for directing the other party to implement the Settlement in case breach of any of its terms has accrued. But, in "the present case, there is absolutely no evidence in support of the contention of the applicant‑Union. Neither in the statement of claims, nor in the evidence of Mr. R. M. Ambar, any instance has been cited regarding the alleged non‑implementation of the term of the said Settlement. Though the applicant‑Union was allowed to adduce evidence on we facts of the case as well, no employee of the respondents who was affected by the alleged non‑implementation was examined, nor ever any letter of the applicant‑Union requesting the respondents for the implementation thereof was produced in support of this demand. In fact, from the affidavit of M. R. B. Ambar and the written arguments of the learned Representative fur the applicant‑Union, it appears that they are more con cerned about Demand No. 2, and have not urged any substantial point with respect to this demand. Therefore, there being no evidence to support of Demand No. 1, it is rejected. Demand No. 2.‑--The allowances claimed under this demand were admittedly not incorporated in the Settlement dated 29‑9‑1967. The case of the applicant‑Union, however, is that the said allowances having beer, granted to the employees of the respondent‑Bank at Karachi, by the earlier Settlement dated 17‑10‑1963, these had become the terms of their employment by the passage of time. As such, these allowances which, according to the applicant‑Union, were existing facilities, could not be arbitrarily and unilaterally withdrawn by tae respondents, as they had proceeded to do after the execution of the settlement dated 29‑9‑1967. Besides, it is contended by the applicant‑Union that the Federation was authorised to negotiate with the respondents only matters of general nature, whereas the applicant‑Union had reserved to itself the right to negotiate matters of local nature pertaining to the conditions of service of the employees at Karachi. Since these allowances are of purely local nature, the applicant‑Union is entitled to demand payment thereof, notwithstanding the Settlement dated 29‑9‑1967. The case of the respondent‑Bank is that this demand is barred in view of the Settlement dated 19‑9‑1967, which provides that no further or fresh financial demands could be raised during the period for which the said Settlement was in force. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant‑Union that it could raise demands regarding matters of IOCA interest. According to the respondents, the Federation had the full authority of a Collective Bargaining Agent in all matters as laid down in section 28‑v of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The respondents further plead that the withdrawal of the allowances demanded under this demand was on account of the overall settlement as the result of which the totality of the benefits conferred upon the workmen was increased and these allowances were merged therein. According to them, under the Settlement dated 29‑9‑1967, the workers in Karachi Centre received overall benefits in terms of money alone approximately 20% more than those available under the Settlement of 1903. Now the Federation was admittedly authorised to act as Collective Bargaining Agent for the employees of the respondent‑Bank to the terms of section 28‑D of the Trade Unions Act, 1926,‑ which is as follows :‑-- "Section 28‑D. Right of Recognised Trade Unions.--‑(1) The executive of a recognized Trade Union shall be entitled to negotiate with the employer in respect of matters connected with the employment, unemployment, the terms of employment, and the conditions of work of all or any of its members, and the employer shall receive and reply letters of and grant interviews to, the executive in connection with any such matter except on which as a result of previous discussion or correspondence with the executive the employer has arrived at a conclusion." Mr. R. B. Ambar admits, in his cross‑examination, that the applicant Union was a unit of the Federation and, as such, the Settlement dated 29 9‑1967 was binding on the applicant‑Union as well. The said Settlement which has been produced as Annexure K/2 of the affidavit of Mr. S. M. Abdullah and Exh. R‑2 in the depositions of Mr. R. B. Ambar, shows that, besides the office‑bearers of the Federation, it was also signed by Messrs Asif Siddiqi and Abu Bakar H. Memon, the President and the General Secretary respectively of the applicant‑Union. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the said Settlement was binding on all the employees of the respondent‑Bank, including those at the Karachi Centre, in respect of matters connected with their employment, the terms of 's employment and the conditions of work. Indeed, this is evident from the terms of the Settlement itself. At page 10 thereof, there is a clear stipulation that the conditions of service included in the Settlement shall apply to all clerical and subordinate staff in the service of the Bank at Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Peshawar and Quetta and any other branches of the Bank which may be opened in the province of West Pakistan. At page 9 of the settlement, appears the conditions to the effect that no further, fresh and/or financial demands shall be raised by the Federation during the period covered by the Settlement. From these terms of the Settlement, it is quite clear that no fresh financial demands could be raised in the matters connected with the terms of employment, even though of purely local nature, during the subsistence of the said Settlement. There is also no force in the contention of the applicant Union that allowances being the existing facilities could not be withdrawn by the respondents after the execution of the said Settlement. If it had been the intention of the parties to continue the payment of these allowances as existing facilities, such stipulation would have expressly appeared in the Settlement, as was done in the case of `Retirement Benefits'. At page 4 of the Settlement, it is provided that the ‑Retirement Benefits' shall be the same art per the 1963 agreements with the Branch Unions. Therefore, these allow ances were undoubtedly given up in vie v of the Settlement dated 29‑9‑1967, Consequently. I find that this demand cannot be raised in view of the said Settlement, and it is rejected. No award is made accordingly.